From info at arin.net Wed Aug 1 14:44:49 2018 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 14:44:49 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records Message-ID: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> In an effort to improve the quality and integrity of the data in the ARIN database, we are exploring a number of new and improved processes and procedures.? As part of this effort, we are proposing that ARIN establish a routine procedure for deleting and archiving orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) records in the ARIN database. We have defined an "orphaned Organization" as one that has no registered number resources. An "orphaned POC" is defined as one that is not directly associated with any number resources nor associated with any organization that has registered number resources. There are several compelling reasons to consider deletion of orphaned Orgs and POCs.? Long orphaned Orgs and POCS are likely to serve no purpose in the registry, they often contain outdated information, and their presence may expose personal data in a manner that may be inconsistent with ARIN's personal data privacy policy. (https://www.arin.net/privacy.html) An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the following results: Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database:? 926,474 Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years:? 317,730 Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years:? 254,275 Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database:? 919,050 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years:? 351,644 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years:? 291,741 The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years.?? This procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is operational experience.? All orphaned data will be removed from the database and archived in perpetuity.? Note that deleted unique Org and POC handles will not be re-utilized. We are seeking community feedback on this proposed modification to current ARIN practices with regards to data maintenance. This consultation will remain open for thirty (30) days, after which the staff will re-evaluate our direction based on any community feedback received. Comments and Feedback Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 31 August 2018. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From caltland at mctvohio.com Wed Aug 1 15:08:59 2018 From: caltland at mctvohio.com (Christopher E. Altland) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 19:08:59 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <3f129b14-7599-d074-81ea-cb5c4776ba28@arin.net> References: <3f129b14-7599-d074-81ea-cb5c4776ba28@arin.net> Message-ID: <6d9f55b887db4495bb3c26705c9f4bcd@mctvohio.com> I agree with this proposal. -----Original Message----- From: ARIN-announce [mailto:arin-announce-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 2:45 PM To: arin-announce at arin.net Subject: [arin-announce] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In an effort to improve the quality and integrity of the data in the ARIN database, we are exploring a number of new and improved processes and procedures.? As part of this effort, we are proposing that ARIN establish a routine procedure for deleting and archiving orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) records in the ARIN database. We have defined an "orphaned Organization" as one that has no registered number resources. An "orphaned POC" is defined as one that is not directly associated with any number resources nor associated with any organization that has registered number resources. There are several compelling reasons to consider deletion of orphaned Orgs and POCs.? Long orphaned Orgs and POCS are likely to serve no purpose in the registry, they often contain outdated information, and their presence may expose personal data in a manner that may be inconsistent with ARIN's personal data privacy policy. (https://www.arin.net/privacy.html) An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the following results: Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database:? 926,474 Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years:? 317,730 Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years:? 254,275 Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database:? 919,050 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years:? 351,644 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years:? 291,741 The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years.?? This procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is operational experience.? All orphaned data will be removed from the database and archived in perpetuity.? Note that deleted unique Org and POC handles will not be re-utilized. We are seeking community feedback on this proposed modification to current ARIN practices with regards to data maintenance. This consultation will remain open for thirty (30) days, after which the staff will re-evaluate our direction based on any community feedback received. Comments and Feedback Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 31 August 2018. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Announce You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Announce Mailing List (ARIN-announce at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-announce Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From rlaager at wiktel.com Wed Aug 1 15:15:46 2018 From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 14:15:46 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: <1acf9379-ac48-3161-a633-f85b7bb2ef5e@wiktel.com> On 08/01/2018 01:44 PM, ARIN wrote: > The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all > Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years.?? This > procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan > being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is > operational experience.? All orphaned data will be removed from the > database and archived in perpetuity.? Note that deleted unique Org and > POC handles will not be re-utilized. This all sounds reasonable. If "archived in perpetuity" ever becomes undesirable, that can be addressed separately. -- Richard From netravnen at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 15:24:29 2018 From: netravnen at gmail.com (Christoffer Hansen) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 21:24:29 +0200 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <1acf9379-ac48-3161-a633-f85b7bb2ef5e@wiktel.com> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <1acf9379-ac48-3161-a633-f85b7bb2ef5e@wiktel.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 at 21:15, Richard Laager wrote: > > On 08/01/2018 01:44 PM, ARIN wrote: > > The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all > > Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years. This > > procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan > > being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is > > operational experience. All orphaned data will be removed from the > > database and archived in perpetuity. Note that deleted unique Org and > > POC handles will not be re-utilized. > > This all sounds reasonable. > > If "archived in perpetuity" ever becomes undesirable, that can be > addressed separately. The RIPE NCC method of going about this in the aftermath of GDPR is removing non-referenced objects (i.e. role/person/non-lir-org objects not currently referenced from inetnum/inet6num/LIR-org objects) after 3 months of being orphaned. With no public archive of the removed objects available after removal from the database. RIPE NCC Labs Articles available here: https://labs.ripe.net/gdpr /Christoffer From mcr at sandelman.ca Wed Aug 1 16:43:00 2018 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 16:43:00 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: <5219.1533156180@localhost> ARIN wrote: > An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the > following results: > Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database:? 926,474 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years:? 317,730 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years:? 254,275 > Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database:? 919,050 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years:? 351,644 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years:? 291,741 I'm curious what the average age of the orphaned entries are? I would have figured it was 10 to 15 years old... I'm also surprised at the number that are orphaned in the single year between 1+ and 2+ (roughly 60K entries for each). I think it would be useful to understand why those POCs were created so "recently" only to be orphaned. > The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all > Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years.?? This > procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan > being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is > operational experience.? All orphaned data will be removed from the > database and archived in perpetuity.? Note that deleted unique Org and > POC handles will not be re-utilized. This sounds like a great plan. Is there a way to keep a POC from being deleted orphaned, even though it might not have any current use? -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ From rlaager at wiktel.com Wed Aug 1 16:48:39 2018 From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:48:39 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <5219.1533156180@localhost> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <5219.1533156180@localhost> Message-ID: <3a0cd7f7-412c-9343-d34f-8d51f15a9284@wiktel.com> On 08/01/2018 03:43 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: > Is there a way to keep a POC from being deleted orphaned, even though it > might not have any current use? Do you have a non-hypothetical example of why that might be desirable? -- Richard From frnkblk at iname.com Wed Aug 1 17:38:43 2018 From: frnkblk at iname.com (Frank Bulk) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:38:43 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: <006e01d429e0$054a8550$0fdf8ff0$@iname.com> I would suggest starting a bit less aggressive -- for the first quarter, delete/archive those that are five year old, and every quarter shorten it by one year, until you're at that two year or older mark. This gives a little more breathing room, just in case something comes up that no one anticipated. Frank -----Original Message----- From: ARIN-consult On Behalf Of ARIN Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 1:45 PM To: arin-consult at arin.net Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In an effort to improve the quality and integrity of the data in the ARIN database, we are exploring a number of new and improved processes and procedures. As part of this effort, we are proposing that ARIN establish a routine procedure for deleting and archiving orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) records in the ARIN database. We have defined an "orphaned Organization" as one that has no registered number resources. An "orphaned POC" is defined as one that is not directly associated with any number resources nor associated with any organization that has registered number resources. There are several compelling reasons to consider deletion of orphaned Orgs and POCs. Long orphaned Orgs and POCS are likely to serve no purpose in the registry, they often contain outdated information, and their presence may expose personal data in a manner that may be inconsistent with ARIN's personal data privacy policy. (https://www.arin.net/privacy.html) An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the following results: Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database: 926,474 Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 317,730 Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 254,275 Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database: 919,050 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 351,644 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 291,741 The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years. This procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is operational experience. All orphaned data will be removed from the database and archived in perpetuity. Note that deleted unique Org and POC handles will not be re-utilized. We are seeking community feedback on this proposed modification to current ARIN practices with regards to data maintenance. This consultation will remain open for thirty (30) days, after which the staff will re-evaluate our direction based on any community feedback received. Comments and Feedback Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 31 August 2018. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Consult You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From rlaager at wiktel.com Wed Aug 1 17:47:59 2018 From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:47:59 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <006e01d429e0$054a8550$0fdf8ff0$@iname.com> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <006e01d429e0$054a8550$0fdf8ff0$@iname.com> Message-ID: <53c18c2e-0472-760b-cf33-3eb81ac21e59@wiktel.com> On 08/01/2018 04:38 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > I would suggest starting a bit less aggressive -- for the first quarter, delete/archive those that are five year old, and every quarter shorten it by one year, until you're at that two year or older mark. This gives a little more breathing room, just in case something comes up that no one anticipated. In my opinion, as long as ARIN is easily able to restore from the archive back to the active database, a slow ramp-up is probably not necessary. -- Richard From farmer at umn.edu Wed Aug 1 18:10:52 2018 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 17:10:52 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: 63,455 organizations orphaned in the last year seems like a lot to me. Were these organizations ever associated with resources? How long ago were they created? How long were they associated with resources? How many of these organizations were child organizations, from reallocations or reassignments? How many created by ARIN making allocations or assignments? This cleanup should happen. However, it kind of sounds like something is broken somewhere too. If that is the case, that should get fixed too. Thanks On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:44 PM, ARIN wrote: > In an effort to improve the quality and integrity of the data in the > ARIN database, we are exploring a number of new and improved processes > and procedures. As part of this effort, we are proposing that ARIN > establish a routine procedure for deleting and archiving orphaned > Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) records in the ARIN database. > > We have defined an "orphaned Organization" as one that has no registered > number resources. An "orphaned POC" is defined as one that is not > directly associated with any number resources nor associated with any > organization that has registered number resources. > > There are several compelling reasons to consider deletion of orphaned > Orgs and POCs. Long orphaned Orgs and POCS are likely to serve no > purpose in the registry, they often contain outdated information, and > their presence may expose personal data in a manner that may be > inconsistent with ARIN's personal data privacy policy. > (https://www.arin.net/privacy.html) > > An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the > following results: > > Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database: 926,474 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 317,730 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 254,275 > > Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database: 919,050 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 351,644 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 291,741 > > The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all > Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years. This > procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan > being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is > operational experience. All orphaned data will be removed from the > database and archived in perpetuity. Note that deleted unique Org and > POC handles will not be re-utilized. > > We are seeking community feedback on this proposed modification to > current ARIN practices with regards to data maintenance. > > This consultation will remain open for thirty (30) days, after which the > staff will re-evaluate our direction based on any community feedback > received. > Comments and Feedback > > Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to > this mailing list at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. > > Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 31 August 2018. > > If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net > > Regards, > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rfg at tristatelogic.com Wed Aug 1 18:23:43 2018 From: rfg at tristatelogic.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 15:23:43 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: <13513.1533162223@segfault.tristatelogic.com> In message <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b at arin.net>, "ARIN-consult" wrote: >The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all >Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years. One small question and one small objection. The question: Why 2 years? Why not 1? (I think 1 would be better.) The objection: In general, I think that this is a fine idea for reasonable "housekeeping". My only concern is with the -absolute- disapperance of data that may be of historical and/or forensic value. If ARIN is going to start disappearing abandoned ORGs and POCs out of the data base... which, standing by itself, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do... then I would only ask that this historical information should continue to made available via the WhoWas service, and that if necessary, the WhoWas service should be enhanced to support arbitrary ARIN handles as search keys. (Perhaps that capability already exists with respect to the WhoWas service? I can't really remember just now.) From mcr at sandelman.ca Wed Aug 1 19:17:41 2018 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 19:17:41 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <3a0cd7f7-412c-9343-d34f-8d51f15a9284@wiktel.com> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <5219.1533156180@localhost> <3a0cd7f7-412c-9343-d34f-8d51f15a9284@wiktel.com> Message-ID: <15680.1533165461@localhost> Richard Laager wrote: >> Is there a way to keep a POC from being deleted orphaned, even though it >> might not have any current use? > Do you have a non-hypothetical example of why that might be desirable? Establishing and maintaining credentials that control a POC is a some amount of amount of work. Login, 2nd factor authentication, etc. I see no reason to have to start again. In the situation where I transfer all my assets elsewhere, and then for whatever reason, do not acquire new things for 25 months (maybe a non-compete agreement. Maybe a vacation. Maybe just not in the ISP business for awhile), I might want to just be able to ping my POC to keep it alive. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ From mcr at sandelman.ca Wed Aug 1 19:18:30 2018 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 19:18:30 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: <15849.1533165510@localhost> David Farmer wrote: > 63,455 organizations orphaned in the last year seems like a lot to me. > Were these organizations ever associated with resources? How long ago > were they created? How long were they associated with resources? How > many of these organizations were child organizations, from > reallocations or reassignments? How many created by ARIN making > allocations or assignments? +1 From stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com Thu Aug 2 09:30:24 2018 From: stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com (stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 13:30:24 +0000 Subject: [E] Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: Hello David, I suspect that we are seeing an uptick in orphaned supporting records (Orgs and POCs) relating to the increase in ARIN Fees (account consolidations to reduce costs) and the sale of IPv4 addresses where the total held assets are transferred. In both cases we are seeing consolidations and centralizations of resources creating more orphans. That said, I?m onboard with wanting to know the cause of the orphans. How many of the newly created 63K were direct recourse holders and how many were reassignments? Of the former direct resource holders; how many became orphans through a transfer to specified recipient? Best Regards, [Verizon] Stephen R. Middleton, Sr. Global IP Address Management Public Data Network Engineering 22001 Loudoun County Parkway; F1-2-277 Ashburn, VA 20147 Office 703.694.6965 stephen.r.middleton at one.verizon.com [Twitter] [LinkedIn] From: ARIN-consult [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 6:11 PM To: ARIN Cc: Subject: [E] Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records 63,455 organizations orphaned in the last year seems like a lot to me. Were these organizations ever associated with resources? How long ago were they created? How long were they associated with resources? How many of these organizations were child organizations, from reallocations or reassignments? How many created by ARIN making allocations or assignments? This cleanup should happen. However, it kind of sounds like something is broken somewhere too. If that is the case, that should get fixed too. Thanks On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:44 PM, ARIN > wrote: In an effort to improve the quality and integrity of the data in the ARIN database, we are exploring a number of new and improved processes and procedures. As part of this effort, we are proposing that ARIN establish a routine procedure for deleting and archiving orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) records in the ARIN database. We have defined an "orphaned Organization" as one that has no registered number resources. An "orphaned POC" is defined as one that is not directly associated with any number resources nor associated with any organization that has registered number resources. There are several compelling reasons to consider deletion of orphaned Orgs and POCs. Long orphaned Orgs and POCS are likely to serve no purpose in the registry, they often contain outdated information, and their presence may expose personal data in a manner that may be inconsistent with ARIN's personal data privacy policy. (https://www.arin.net/privacy.html) An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the following results: Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database: 926,474 Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 317,730 Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 254,275 Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database: 919,050 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 351,644 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 291,741 The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years. This procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is operational experience. All orphaned data will be removed from the database and archived in perpetuity. Note that deleted unique Org and POC handles will not be re-utilized. We are seeking community feedback on this proposed modification to current ARIN practices with regards to data maintenance. This consultation will remain open for thirty (30) days, after which the staff will re-evaluate our direction based on any community feedback received. Comments and Feedback Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 31 August 2018. If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ ARIN-Consult You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From peter at colovore.com Thu Aug 2 10:10:03 2018 From: peter at colovore.com (Peter Harrison) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 07:10:03 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: How would "un-archiving" be done in cases where the organizations or POCs want to be revived? - Would brand new records need to be created, or would some base level of verifying data need to be presented for reactivation? - How would duplicate personal / contact information be handled? For example someone re-registers with the same work email address and other personally identifiable information. Would they just be automatically reactivated, or is there some other plan? - What would be the WhoIs implications of these sorts of scenarios? -- Peter Harrison CTO, Colovore On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 6:30 AM, Stephen R. Middleton via ARIN-consult < arin-consult at arin.net> wrote: > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com > To: David Farmer , ARIN > Cc: "" > Bcc: > Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 13:30:24 +0000 > Subject: RE: [E] Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization > (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records > > Hello David, > > > > I suspect that we are seeing an uptick in orphaned supporting records > (Orgs and POCs) relating to the increase in ARIN Fees (account > consolidations to reduce costs) and the sale of IPv4 addresses where the > total held assets are transferred. In both cases we are seeing > consolidations and centralizations of resources creating more orphans. > > > > That said, I?m onboard with wanting to know the cause of the orphans. How > many of the newly created 63K were direct recourse holders and how many > were reassignments? Of the former direct resource holders; how many became > orphans through a transfer to specified recipient? > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > [image: Verizon] > > Stephen R. Middleton, Sr. > Global IP Address Management > Public Data Network Engineering > > 22001 Loudoun County Parkway; F1-2-277 > Ashburn, VA 20147 > > Office 703.694.6965 > stephen.r.middleton at one.verizon.com > > [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] > [image: LinkedIn] > > > > > *From:* ARIN-consult [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of > *David Farmer > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2018 6:11 PM > *To:* ARIN > *Cc:* > *Subject:* [E] Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization > (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records > > > > 63,455 organizations orphaned in the last year seems like a lot to me. > Were these organizations ever associated with resources? How long ago were > they created? How long were they associated with resources? How many of > these organizations were child organizations, from reallocations or > reassignments? How many created by ARIN making allocations or assignments? > > > > This cleanup should happen. However, it kind of sounds like something is > broken somewhere too. If that is the case, that should get fixed too. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:44 PM, ARIN wrote: > > In an effort to improve the quality and integrity of the data in the > ARIN database, we are exploring a number of new and improved processes > and procedures. As part of this effort, we are proposing that ARIN > establish a routine procedure for deleting and archiving orphaned > Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) records in the ARIN database. > > We have defined an "orphaned Organization" as one that has no registered > number resources. An "orphaned POC" is defined as one that is not > directly associated with any number resources nor associated with any > organization that has registered number resources. > > There are several compelling reasons to consider deletion of orphaned > Orgs and POCs. Long orphaned Orgs and POCS are likely to serve no > purpose in the registry, they often contain outdated information, and > their presence may expose personal data in a manner that may be > inconsistent with ARIN's personal data privacy policy. > (https://www.arin.net/privacy.html > > ) > > An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the > following results: > > Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database: 926,474 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 317,730 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 254,275 > > Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database: 919,050 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 351,644 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 291,741 > > The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all > Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years. This > procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan > being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is > operational experience. All orphaned data will be removed from the > database and archived in perpetuity. Note that deleted unique Org and > POC handles will not be re-utilized. > > We are seeking community feedback on this proposed modification to > current ARIN practices with regards to data maintenance. > > This consultation will remain open for thirty (30) days, after which the > staff will re-evaluate our direction based on any community feedback > received. > Comments and Feedback > > Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to > this mailing list at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult > > . > > Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 31 August 2018. > > If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net > > Regards, > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult > > Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > -- > > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jschiller at google.com Thu Aug 2 10:53:44 2018 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:53:44 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <15680.1533165461@localhost> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <5219.1533156180@localhost> <3a0cd7f7-412c-9343-d34f-8d51f15a9284@wiktel.com> <15680.1533165461@localhost> Message-ID: I think we can address a lot of these issues with a simple modification. 1. Don't purge an orphaned POC or OrgID if: - it has POCs that have been validated in the last 24 months - there is know ARIN interaction with the POC, OrgID in the last year. - there has been known ARIN interaction with POCs or OrgIDs with a similar company name, or address. - A warning email is sent to contact information on file, and a response was received asking to not delete it. 2. Provide a process for easy restoration of a deleted POC or OrgID. As Peter Harrison points out, we would need to sort out the details of this process. __Jason On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:17 PM Michael Richardson wrote: > Richard Laager wrote: > >> Is there a way to keep a POC from being deleted orphaned, even > though it > >> might not have any current use? > > > Do you have a non-hypothetical example of why that might be > desirable? > > Establishing and maintaining credentials that control a POC is a some > amount > of amount of work. Login, 2nd factor authentication, etc. I see no > reason > to have to start again. > > In the situation where I transfer all my assets elsewhere, and then for > whatever reason, do not acquire new things for 25 months (maybe a > non-compete > agreement. Maybe a vacation. Maybe just not in the ISP business for > awhile), > I might want to just be able to ping my POC to keep it alive. > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh > networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network > architect [ > ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on > rails [ > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Thu Aug 2 11:05:57 2018 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:05:57 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: Yes, some of those are very much expected. However, there have been approximately 1500 transfers in the last year, which is less than 3% of the abandon organization in the last year. So, something other than transfers accounts for the vast majority of abandoned organizations. I suspect reallocations and reassignments, but that is just a guess. If those reallocations and reassignments were for a year or so and this is just annual churn, that's fine. However, if these reallocations and reassignments were short-term, like weeks or months, then maybe we need to change some policies. Worse yet if the organizations never had resources associated with them, then something seems broken somewhere. Maybe calling for even shorter-term garbage collection, like monthly. But, I wouldn't recommend going there without a better understanding of what and why this is happening. Thanks. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 8:30 AM, wrote: > Hello David, > > > > I suspect that we are seeing an uptick in orphaned supporting records > (Orgs and POCs) relating to the increase in ARIN Fees (account > consolidations to reduce costs) and the sale of IPv4 addresses where the > total held assets are transferred. In both cases we are seeing > consolidations and centralizations of resources creating more orphans. > > > > That said, I?m onboard with wanting to know the cause of the orphans. How > many of the newly created 63K were direct recourse holders and how many > were reassignments? Of the former direct resource holders; how many became > orphans through a transfer to specified recipient? > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > [image: Verizon] > > Stephen R. Middleton, Sr. > Global IP Address Management > Public Data Network Engineering > > 22001 Loudoun County Parkway > ; > F1-2-277 > Ashburn, VA 20147 > > Office 703.694.6965 > stephen.r.middleton at one.verizon.com > > [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] > [image: LinkedIn] > > > > > *From:* ARIN-consult [mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net] *On Behalf Of > *David Farmer > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 01, 2018 6:11 PM > *To:* ARIN > *Cc:* > *Subject:* [E] Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization > (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records > > > > 63,455 organizations orphaned in the last year seems like a lot to me. > Were these organizations ever associated with resources? How long ago were > they created? How long were they associated with resources? How many of > these organizations were child organizations, from reallocations or > reassignments? How many created by ARIN making allocations or assignments? > > > > This cleanup should happen. However, it kind of sounds like something is > broken somewhere too. If that is the case, that should get fixed too. > > > > Thanks > > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:44 PM, ARIN wrote: > > In an effort to improve the quality and integrity of the data in the > ARIN database, we are exploring a number of new and improved processes > and procedures. As part of this effort, we are proposing that ARIN > establish a routine procedure for deleting and archiving orphaned > Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) records in the ARIN database. > > We have defined an "orphaned Organization" as one that has no registered > number resources. An "orphaned POC" is defined as one that is not > directly associated with any number resources nor associated with any > organization that has registered number resources. > > There are several compelling reasons to consider deletion of orphaned > Orgs and POCs. Long orphaned Orgs and POCS are likely to serve no > purpose in the registry, they often contain outdated information, and > their presence may expose personal data in a manner that may be > inconsistent with ARIN's personal data privacy policy. > (https://www.arin.net/privacy.html > > ) > > An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the > following results: > > Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database: 926,474 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 317,730 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 254,275 > > Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database: 919,050 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 351,644 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 291,741 > > The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all > Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years. This > procedure would be run on a quarterly basis initially, with the plan > being to move to a more frequent basis (such as monthly) once there is > operational experience. All orphaned data will be removed from the > database and archived in perpetuity. Note that deleted unique Org and > POC handles will not be re-utilized. > > We are seeking community feedback on this proposed modification to > current ARIN practices with regards to data maintenance. > > This consultation will remain open for thirty (30) days, after which the > staff will re-evaluate our direction based on any community feedback > received. > Comments and Feedback > > Please provide comments to arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to > this mailing list at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult > > . > > Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 31 August 2018. > > If you have any questions, please contact us at info at arin.net > > Regards, > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult > > Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > -- > > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE > > Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Thu Aug 2 11:54:32 2018 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:54:32 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <5219.1533156180@localhost> <3a0cd7f7-412c-9343-d34f-8d51f15a9284@wiktel.com> <15680.1533165461@localhost> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Jason Schiller via ARIN-consult < arin-consult at arin.net> wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jason Schiller > To: mcr at sandelman.ca > Cc: rlaager at wiktel.com, "" > Bcc: > Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 10:53:44 -0400 > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) > and Point of Contact (POC) Records > I think we can address a lot of these issues with a simple modification. > > 1. Don't purge an orphaned POC or OrgID if: > - it has POCs that have been validated in the last 24 months > - there is know ARIN interaction with the POC, OrgID in the last year. > - there has been known ARIN interaction with POCs or OrgIDs with a similar > company name, or address. > - A warning email is sent to contact information on file, and a response > was received asking to not delete it. > - An ARIN Online account assoicated with the POC. > 2. Provide a process for easy restoration of a deleted POC or OrgID. > > As Peter Harrison points out, we would need to sort out the details of > this process. > > __Jason > > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:17 PM Michael Richardson > wrote: > >> Richard Laager wrote: >> >> Is there a way to keep a POC from being deleted orphaned, even >> though it >> >> might not have any current use? >> >> > Do you have a non-hypothetical example of why that might be >> desirable? >> >> Establishing and maintaining credentials that control a POC is a some >> amount >> of amount of work. Login, 2nd factor authentication, etc. I see no >> reason >> to have to start again. >> >> In the situation where I transfer all my assets elsewhere, and then for >> whatever reason, do not acquire new things for 25 months (maybe a >> non-compete >> agreement. Maybe a vacation. Maybe just not in the ISP business for >> awhile), >> I might want to just be able to ping my POC to keep it alive. >> >> -- >> ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh >> networks [ >> ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network >> architect [ >> ] mcr at sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on >> rails [ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Consult >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Consult Mailing >> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the >> ARIN Member Services >> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 > > > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Thu Aug 2 12:06:16 2018 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 12:06:16 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:44 PM, ARIN wrote: > An analysis of the ARIN registry for orphaned records has shown the > following results: > > Total # of registered Orgs in ARIN's database: 926,474 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 317,730 > Total # of Orgs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 254,275 > > Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database: 919,050 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 351,644 > Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 2+ years: 291,741 Hi, What portion of this is from folks who directly interacted with ARIN versus records introduced via SWIP from a third party? > The proposed procedure would result in the deletion and archival of all > Orgs and POCs that have been orphaned for 2 or more years. If the archive is publicly accessible (perhaps constrained to a web form instead of the multiple access methods available for primary data) I have no objection. If the archive is retired from public view, there are at least some hypothetical scenarios where access to historical data would help forensic investigations. Not just law enforcement: documentation gets lost and it would be helpful to be able to track down why my predecessor accepted a route from someone who does not at this instant appear in the registry. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: From bjones at vt.edu Thu Aug 2 14:38:09 2018 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:38:09 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: +1 We need a better understanding of what t is happening here and why before making decisions about deleting things. IMHO. -- Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO NI&S Virginia Tech bjones at vt.edu > On Aug 2, 2018, at 11:05 AM, David Farmer wrote: > > Yes, some of those are very much expected. However, there have been approximately 1500 transfers in the last year, which is less than 3% of the abandon organization in the last year. So, something other than transfers accounts for the vast majority of abandoned organizations. > > I suspect reallocations and reassignments, but that is just a guess. If those reallocations and reassignments were for a year or so and this is just annual churn, that's fine. However, if these reallocations and reassignments were short-term, like weeks or months, then maybe we need to change some policies. Worse yet if the organizations never had resources associated with them, then something seems broken somewhere. Maybe calling for even shorter-term garbage collection, like monthly. But, I wouldn't recommend going there without a better understanding of what and why this is happening. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com Thu Aug 2 14:47:25 2018 From: stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com (stephen.r.middleton at verizon.com) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 18:47:25 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: Exactly so. Best Regards, [Verizon] Stephen R. Middleton, Sr. Global IP Address Management Public Data Network Engineering 22001 Loudoun County Parkway; F1-2-277 Ashburn, VA 20147 Office 703.694.6965 stephen.r.middleton at one.verizon.com [Twitter] [LinkedIn] From: Brian Jones [mailto:bjones at vt.edu] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 2:38 PM To: Cc: Middleton, Stephen R ; David Farmer Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records +1 We need a better understanding of what t is happening here and why before making decisions about deleting things. IMHO. -- Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO NI&S Virginia Tech bjones at vt.edu On Aug 2, 2018, at 11:05 AM, David Farmer > wrote: Yes, some of those are very much expected. However, there have been approximately 1500 transfers in the last year, which is less than 3% of the abandon organization in the last year. So, something other than transfers accounts for the vast majority of abandoned organizations. I suspect reallocations and reassignments, but that is just a guess. If those reallocations and reassignments were for a year or so and this is just annual churn, that's fine. However, if these reallocations and reassignments were short-term, like weeks or months, then maybe we need to change some policies. Worse yet if the organizations never had resources associated with them, then something seems broken somewhere. Maybe calling for even shorter-term garbage collection, like monthly. But, I wouldn't recommend going there without a better understanding of what and why this is happening. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Aug 2 19:16:01 2018 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 23:16:01 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: <86C49457-5A39-4F3F-8EBA-E4D051566A9D@arin.net> On 1 Aug 2018, at 2:44 PM, ARIN > wrote: Total # of registered POCs in ARIN's database: 919,050 Total # of POCs that have been orphaned for 1+ years: 351,644 Some additional data attached. /John === Q: What is the average age of the orphaned records? Here?s the distribution of the POCs presently orphaned for one year originally created date since 2000 Year of POC Number Creation of POCs 2017 14,639 2016 34,334 2015 38,785 2014 32,254 2013 33,627 2012 35,050 2011 29,576 2010 23,231 2009 21,984 2008 20,398 2007 15,234 2006 10,650 2005 5,679 2004 5,650 2003 4,758 2002 5,690 2001 7,353 2000 5,670 (Orphaned orgs have a very similar distribution) Q: Is there a way to keep an orphaned POC from being deleted? A: Yes. One of the criteria we are applying is not to remove any locked records. If you wish to prevent a record from being deleted, you may request that it be locked. Q: Can deleted records be restored? A: Not at this time. We have examined the work required to restore deleted records and determined that it would require significant effort to change the system to allow it. Keeping deleted records permanently deleted also serves as a security measure. When old records are restored, there?s a chance some of that old history could provide an attack vector. Creating a new record allows us to ensure that we are able to obtain the most current/accurate information. Note that there is likely no significant difference in the work required to establish a new set of records rather than restore old ones. Our current practice requires annual re-verification/vetting of Org records, so even if the record had been preserved rather than deleted, there's minimal difference in terms of what would be required from organizations. Q: How many orphaned records are from SWIP and how many are from direct registrations? A: 1% of the orphaned records have ever been associated with a direct registration. 99% of the orphaned records have been associated with at least one object (network/ASN) at some point. Based on this data, it?s safe to conclude +/- 98% of the orphaned records were created solely for SWIP. Q: Will the deleted data disappear forever? A: No. It will remain archived and will still be available to fulfill WhoWas reports, subpoena requests, etc, although it will not appear in Whois and will not be available for anything other than historical research. Note that at present WhoWas accepts a single IP address or AS number - you cannot query by Org ID or POC handle. === -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Thu Aug 2 19:23:32 2018 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 23:23:32 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <86C49457-5A39-4F3F-8EBA-E4D051566A9D@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <86C49457-5A39-4F3F-8EBA-E4D051566A9D@arin.net> Message-ID: On 2 Aug 2018, at 7:16 PM, John Curran > wrote: Here?s the distribution of the POCs presently orphaned for one year originally created date since 2000 Year of POC Number Creation of POCs Folks - My apologies - The previous table had interesting formatting on some devices. Here?s a different format that may be more helpful to some... /John Year # Orphaned POCs Created 2017 14,639 2016 34,334 2015 38,785 2014 32,254 2013 33,627 2012 35,050 2011 29,576 2010 23,231 2009 21,984 2008 20,398 2007 15,234 2006 10,650 2005 5,679 2004 5,650 2003 4,758 2002 5,690 2001 7,353 2000 5,670 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Aug 3 10:41:42 2018 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 14:41:42 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> Message-ID: <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> On 2 Aug 2018, at 9:30 AM, Stephen R. Middleton via ARIN-consult > wrote: From: > Subject: RE: [E] Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records Date: 2 August 2018 at 9:30:24 AM EDT To: David Farmer >, ARIN > Cc: ">" > ... I suspect that we are seeing an uptick in orphaned supporting records (Orgs and POCs) relating to the increase in ARIN Fees (account consolidations to reduce costs) and the sale of IPv4 addresses where the total held assets are transferred. In both cases we are seeing consolidations and centralizations of resources creating more orphans. Steven - You are correct. First, it is worth noting that difference between the 1 year and 2 year criterion is about when record would be considered orphaned, not with regard to the time that the record was created. That means we didn?t have 65k records created and then orphaned in a single year. It means 65k more records of varying ages would be considered orphaned using the 1 year criterion. Second, the 65k number is driven by the significant increase in specified recipient transfers. Any time we complete a specified recipient transfer, all reassignment records are removed from the network, and in some cases this can be an extremely large number of reassignments being deleted. When a reassignment record is removed from the database, the associated Org ID and POCs are not deleted unless the upstream ISP conducts separate transactions to do so (which almost never happens). Applying a one-year threshold today means that records that became orphaned in late 2016 and early 2017 are included in the total count, and that was definitely a period of heavy transfer activity. An analysis of current data shows that of the 497,119 general use Org IDs with at least one reassignment in our database today (i.e. simple reassignments excluded), 91% have one and only one reassignment. Put simply, this means that when a reassignment is deleted (very often due to a specified recipient transfer), there?s about a 91% chance it will result in orphaned Org and POC records. Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact same organization name with another of the 454,090). While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, which in turn reduces orphaned records. Hopefully this additional information will provide some insight into the present situation with orphaned records, and thus help advance the overall consultation discussion. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jschiller at google.com Fri Aug 3 12:23:31 2018 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:23:31 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:16 PM John Curran wrote: On 1 Aug 2018, at 2:44 PM, ARIN wrote: | | | Q: Is there a way to keep an orphaned POC from being deleted? | | A: Yes. One of the criteria we are applying is not to remove any locked records. If you | wish to prevent a record from being deleted, you may request that it be locked. Can I lock and unlock the record through ARIN online? If yes, can one of the linked accounts lock it and another linked account unlock it? If the record is locked, is ARIN online still fully functional? | | Q: Can deleted records be restored? | | A: Not at this time. We have examined the work required to restore deleted records and | determined that it would require significant effort to change the system to allow it. Keeping | deleted records permanently deleted also serves as a security measure. When old records | are restored, there?s a chance some of that old history could provide an attack vector. | Creating a new record allows us to ensure that we are able to obtain the most current/accurate | information. Note that there is likely no significant difference in the work required to establish | a new set of records rather than restore old ones. Our current practice requires annual | re-verification/vetting of Org records, so even if the record had been preserved rather than deleted, | there's minimal difference in terms of what would be required from organizations. Does this mean the amount of work a POC or Org would have to do is the same if the POC or OrgID was restored as compared to creating a new record? In what way will the new POC or OrgID differ from the deleted one? Can it have the same POC handle? same Org Handle? Do we just need to re-assert the contact info and re-link with web accounts? Do we lose access to old tickets of that OrgID? or that POC? Do we need to re-create new two factor auth and new API-Keys? On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 10:42 AM John Curran wrote: > On 2 Aug 2018, at 9:30 AM, Stephen R. Middleton via ARIN-consult < > arin-consult at arin.net> wrote: > > > * From: * > *Subject: **RE: [E] Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Orphaned > Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records* > *Date: *2 August 2018 at 9:30:24 AM EDT > *To: *David Farmer , ARIN > *Cc: *"" > ... > I suspect that we are seeing an uptick in orphaned supporting records > (Orgs and POCs) relating to the increase in ARIN Fees (account > consolidations to reduce costs) and the sale of IPv4 addresses where the > total held assets are transferred. In both cases we are seeing > consolidations and centralizations of resources creating more orphans. > > > Steven - > > You are correct. > > First, it is worth noting that difference between the 1 year and 2 year > criterion is about when record would be considered orphaned, not with > regard to the time that the record was created. That means we didn?t have > 65k records created and then orphaned in a single year. It means 65k more > records of varying ages would be considered orphaned using the 1 year > criterion. > > Second, the 65k number is driven by the significant increase in specified > recipient transfers. Any time we complete a specified recipient transfer, > all reassignment records are removed from the network, and in some cases > this can be an extremely large number of reassignments being deleted. When > a reassignment record is removed from the database, the associated Org ID > and POCs are not deleted unless the upstream ISP conducts separate > transactions to do so (which almost never happens). Applying a one-year > threshold today means that records that became orphaned in late 2016 and > early 2017 are included in the total count, and that was definitely a > period of heavy transfer activity. > > An analysis of current data shows that of the 497,119 general use Org IDs > with at least one reassignment in our database today (i.e. simple > reassignments excluded), 91% have one and only one reassignment. Put > simply, this means that when a reassignment is deleted (very often due to a > specified recipient transfer), there?s about a 91% chance it will result in > orphaned Org and POC records. Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have > one and only one reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the > exact same organization name with another of the 454,090). While there may > be differences in street address, contacts, etc, this suggests an > opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their SWIP publication practices > and cut down on duplicate records, which in turn reduces orphaned records. > > Hopefully this additional information will provide some insight into the > present situation with orphaned records, and thus help advance the overall > consultation discussion. > > Thanks! > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Fri Aug 3 15:07:04 2018 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 19:07:04 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> Message-ID: <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> Jason - Answers below. /John === Can I lock and unlock the record through ARIN online? If yes, can one of the linked accounts lock it and another linked account unlock it? ** No. Locking can only be done by staff. If the record is locked, is ARIN online still fully functional? ** Yes, aside from being able to modify the locked record. Does this mean the amount of work a POC or Org would have to do is the same if the POC or OrgID was restored as compared to creating a new record? ** Yes; the work is roughly the same. In what way will the new POC or OrgID differ from the deleted one? Can it have the same POC handle? same Org Handle? ** The new POC handle/Org ID will be a distinct and different record. Do we just need to re-assert the contact info and re-link with web accounts? ** This is basically correct. You'd create a new set of records and link/associate it with whatever other records (web accounts, resources, etc) you desire. Do we lose access to old tickets of that OrgID? or that POC? ** One of the criteria for deletion is that the POC handle/Org ID not be associated with any tickets (including both open and closed). There should be no case in which a deleted orphaned record has any ticket history to access. Do we need to re-create new two factor auth and new API-Keys? ** No. 2FA and API keys are associated with web accounts, not POC handles/Org IDs. From owen at delong.com Sun Aug 5 15:34:37 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 12:34:37 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> Message-ID: It seems to me that the following statements are true: 1. If an POC record is has not been linked from any ORG or RESOURCE type records for more than 12 months, then said POC record can be considered orphaned. 2. It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that their record is orphaned and pending deletion. 3. After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s for all eternity. I encourage ARIN to enact this or a similar process for removing orphaned POC records. Thanks, Owen From jcurran at arin.net Mon Aug 6 09:11:19 2018 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:11:19 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> Message-ID: On 5 Aug 2018, at 3:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > 2. It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that > their record is orphaned and pending deletion. > > 3. After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a > reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s > for all eternity. Owen - ?If ARIN does not receive some form of response? is rather vague? Can we both clarify and streamline the processing to effect that ARIN makes a reasonable effort to contact the POC, and then 60 days later, if the POC still meets orphaned criteria AND has not been updated in the any manner, then it is safe to archive and remove? This provides that a party notified can associate the record with some resources or simply update it the record and it will remain in the database. Thoughts? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From owen at delong.com Mon Aug 6 10:37:54 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 07:37:54 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> Message-ID: <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957@delong.com> > On Aug 6, 2018, at 06:11, John Curran wrote: > >> On 5 Aug 2018, at 3:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> 2. It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that >> their record is orphaned and pending deletion. >> >> 3. After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a >> reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s >> for all eternity. > > Owen - > > ?If ARIN does not receive some form of response? is rather vague? > > Can we both clarify and streamline the processing to effect that ARIN makes a reasonable effort to contact the POC, and then 60 days later, if the POC still meets orphaned criteria AND has not been updated in the any manner, then it is safe to archive and remove? That?s fine with me. My intent wasn?t to design the details of the process, but to leave that open to staff to fill in such that it fits into ARIN?s current business practices and processes. What you describe would definitely be an acceptable implementation of the intent I was trying to convey. > This provides that a party notified can associate the record with some resources or simply update it the record and it will remain in the database. It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some form of change, but if there?s some reason not to permit that, I?m not strongly tied to the idea. Owen From jzp-arin-consult at rsuc.gweep.net Mon Aug 6 11:30:59 2018 From: jzp-arin-consult at rsuc.gweep.net (Joe Provo) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 11:30:59 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957@delong.com> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957@delong.com> Message-ID: <20180806153022.GA48838@gweep.net> [personal hat on] On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: [snip] > It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC > ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some > form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that, > I???m not strongly tied to the idea. Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration) nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised. I think that's a big win for aliveness detection. Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that timescale. Not super wedded to that detail. JC previously wrote: > Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one > reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact > same organization name with another of the 454,090). > While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, > this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their > SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, > which in turn reduces orphaned records. I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course? It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after transactions have been completed and forgotten. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling From owen at delong.com Mon Aug 6 11:44:43 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 08:44:43 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <20180806153022.GA48838@gweep.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957@delong.com> <20180806153022.GA48838@gweep.net> Message-ID: <9D7DB88E-A59F-4F84-918D-60BFA6B4EE1F@delong.com> +1 Owen > On Aug 6, 2018, at 08:30, Joe Provo wrote: > > > [personal hat on] > >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> [snip] >> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC >> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some >> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that, >> I???m not strongly tied to the idea. > > Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration) > nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised. > I think that's a big win for aliveness detection. > > Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the > larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that > timescale. Not super wedded to that detail. > > JC previously wrote: >> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one >> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact >> same organization name with another of the 454,090). >> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, >> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their >> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, >> which in turn reduces orphaned records. > > I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation > on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. > As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical > process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable > *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course? > It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction > would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently > here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection > sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after > transactions have been completed and forgotten. > > Cheers! > > Joe > > -- > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From peter at colovore.com Mon Aug 6 11:49:33 2018 From: peter at colovore.com (Peter Harrison) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 08:49:33 -0700 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <9D7DB88E-A59F-4F84-918D-60BFA6B4EE1F@delong.com> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957@delong.com> <20180806153022.GA48838@gweep.net> <9D7DB88E-A59F-4F84-918D-60BFA6B4EE1F@delong.com> Message-ID: +1 on "POC validation at time of orphaning" What would the question be on the validation? 1. "Do you want to remain an orphan?" 2. "Who do you want as your new parent?" 3. "We're going to delete you, OK?" Some either/or combination of the above. 2 and 3 maybe? Peter On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > +1 > > Owen > > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 08:30, Joe Provo > wrote: > > > > > > [personal hat on] > > > >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> [snip] > >> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC > >> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some > >> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that, > >> I???m not strongly tied to the idea. > > > > Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration) > > nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised. > > I think that's a big win for aliveness detection. > > > > Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the > > larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that > > timescale. Not super wedded to that detail. > > > > JC previously wrote: > >> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one > >> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact > >> same organization name with another of the 454,090). > >> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, > >> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their > >> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, > >> which in turn reduces orphaned records. > > > > I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation > > on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. > > As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical > > process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable > > *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course? > > It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction > > would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently > > here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection > > sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after > > transactions have been completed and forgotten. > > > > Cheers! > > > > Joe > > > > -- > > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Consult > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jschiller at google.com Mon Aug 6 11:57:28 2018 From: jschiller at google.com (Jason Schiller) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 11:57:28 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957@delong.com> <20180806153022.GA48838@gweep.net> <9D7DB88E-A59F-4F84-918D-60BFA6B4EE1F@delong.com> Message-ID: I'm good so long is there is some way to assert that the POC or OrgId is still desired and prevent the deletion. +1 to reviewing the "POC validation on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. +1 to triggering the review of the creation of orphaned status prior to completion of the action that causes it. It does need to consult both parties. (not suggesting you should hold up the transaction, just use it to draw the appropriate attention to right parties at a convenient time... perhaps you could make the process go faster if the parties have already sorted these issue in advance). ___Jason On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 11:50 AM Peter Harrison wrote: > +1 on "POC validation at time of orphaning" > > What would the question be on the validation? > > 1. "Do you want to remain an orphan?" > 2. "Who do you want as your new parent?" > 3. "We're going to delete you, OK?" > > Some either/or combination of the above. 2 and 3 maybe? > > > Peter > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Owen >> >> > On Aug 6, 2018, at 08:30, Joe Provo >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > [personal hat on] >> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC >> >> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some >> >> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that, >> >> I???m not strongly tied to the idea. >> > >> > Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration) >> > nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised. >> > I think that's a big win for aliveness detection. >> > >> > Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the >> > larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that >> > timescale. Not super wedded to that detail. >> > >> > JC previously wrote: >> >> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one >> >> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact >> >> same organization name with another of the 454,090). >> >> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, >> >> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their >> >> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, >> >> which in turn reduces orphaned records. >> > >> > I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation >> > on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. >> > As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical >> > process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable >> > *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course? >> > It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction >> > would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently >> > here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection >> > sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after >> > transactions have been completed and forgotten. >> > >> > Cheers! >> > >> > Joe >> > >> > -- >> > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. >> > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ARIN-Consult >> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Consult Mailing >> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). >> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact >> the ARIN Member Services >> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Consult >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Consult Mailing >> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the >> ARIN Member Services >> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Paul.McElhaney at twdb.texas.gov Mon Aug 6 12:02:32 2018 From: Paul.McElhaney at twdb.texas.gov (Paul McElhaney) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 16:02:32 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your link is incorrect on the first. The second works. I highly recommend that you do not use underscores or spaces in your file names. Underscores get hidden by the underline which users think it is a space. Use hypens. -----Original Message----- From: ARIN-consult On Behalf Of arin-consult-request at arin.net Sent: Monday, August 06, 2018 10:50 AM To: arin-consult at arin.net Subject: ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10 Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to arin-consult at arin.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to arin-consult-request at arin.net You can reach the person managing the list at arin-consult-owner at arin.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-consult digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records (Owen DeLong) 2. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records (John Curran) 3. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records (Owen DeLong) 4. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records (Joe Provo) 5. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records (Owen DeLong) 6. Re: [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records (Peter Harrison) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 12:34:37 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: John Curran Cc: Jason Schiller , "" Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It seems to me that the following statements are true: 1. If an POC record is has not been linked from any ORG or RESOURCE type records for more than 12 months, then said POC record can be considered orphaned. 2. It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that their record is orphaned and pending deletion. 3. After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s for all eternity. I encourage ARIN to enact this or a similar process for removing orphaned POC records. Thanks, Owen ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:11:19 +0000 From: John Curran To: Owen DeLong Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On 5 Aug 2018, at 3:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > 2. It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that > their record is orphaned and pending deletion. > > 3. After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a > reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s > for all eternity. Owen - ?If ARIN does not receive some form of response? is rather vague? Can we both clarify and streamline the processing to effect that ARIN makes a reasonable effort to contact the POC, and then 60 days later, if the POC still meets orphaned criteria AND has not been updated in the any manner, then it is safe to archive and remove? This provides that a party notified can associate the record with some resources or simply update it the record and it will remain in the database. Thoughts? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 07:37:54 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: John Curran Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records Message-ID: <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957 at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > On Aug 6, 2018, at 06:11, John Curran wrote: > >> On 5 Aug 2018, at 3:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> 2. It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, giving said POC 60 days notice that >> their record is orphaned and pending deletion. >> >> 3. After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of response indicating that there is a >> reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove it, relegating it to who?s >> for all eternity. > > Owen - > > ?If ARIN does not receive some form of response? is rather vague? > > Can we both clarify and streamline the processing to effect that ARIN makes a reasonable effort to contact the POC, and then 60 days later, if the POC still meets orphaned criteria AND has not been updated in the any manner, then it is safe to archive and remove? That?s fine with me. My intent wasn?t to design the details of the process, but to leave that open to staff to fill in such that it fits into ARIN?s current business practices and processes. What you describe would definitely be an acceptable implementation of the intent I was trying to convey. > This provides that a party notified can associate the record with some resources or simply update it the record and it will remain in the database. It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some form of change, but if there?s some reason not to permit that, I?m not strongly tied to the idea. Owen ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 11:30:59 -0400 From: Joe Provo To: "" Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records Message-ID: <20180806153022.GA48838 at gweep.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii [personal hat on] On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: [snip] > It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC > ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some > form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that, > I???m not strongly tied to the idea. Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration) nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised. I think that's a big win for aliveness detection. Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that timescale. Not super wedded to that detail. JC previously wrote: > Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one > reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact > same organization name with another of the 454,090). > While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, > this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their > SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, > which in turn reduces orphaned records. I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course? It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after transactions have been completed and forgotten. Cheers! Joe -- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 08:44:43 -0700 From: Owen DeLong To: jzp-arin-consult at rsuc.gweep.net Cc: "" Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records Message-ID: <9D7DB88E-A59F-4F84-918D-60BFA6B4EE1F at delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +1 Owen > On Aug 6, 2018, at 08:30, Joe Provo wrote: > > > [personal hat on] > >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> [snip] >> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC >> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some >> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that, >> I???m not strongly tied to the idea. > > Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration) > nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised. > I think that's a big win for aliveness detection. > > Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the > larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that > timescale. Not super wedded to that detail. > > JC previously wrote: >> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one >> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact >> same organization name with another of the 454,090). >> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, >> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their >> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, >> which in turn reduces orphaned records. > > I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation > on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. > As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical > process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable > *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course? > It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction > would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently > here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection > sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after > transactions have been completed and forgotten. > > Cheers! > > Joe > > -- > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 08:49:33 -0700 From: Peter Harrison To: "" Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" +1 on "POC validation at time of orphaning" What would the question be on the validation? 1. "Do you want to remain an orphan?" 2. "Who do you want as your new parent?" 3. "We're going to delete you, OK?" Some either/or combination of the above. 2 and 3 maybe? Peter On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > +1 > > Owen > > > On Aug 6, 2018, at 08:30, Joe Provo > wrote: > > > > > > [personal hat on] > > > >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> [snip] > >> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC > >> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some > >> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that, > >> I???m not strongly tied to the idea. > > > > Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration) > > nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised. > > I think that's a big win for aliveness detection. > > > > Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the > > larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that > > timescale. Not super wedded to that detail. > > > > JC previously wrote: > >> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one > >> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact > >> same organization name with another of the 454,090). > >> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, > >> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their > >> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, > >> which in turn reduces orphaned records. > > > > I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation > > on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. > > As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical > > process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable > > *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course? > > It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction > > would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently > > here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection > > sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after > > transactions have been completed and forgotten. > > > > Cheers! > > > > Joe > > > > -- > > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Consult > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ ARIN-consult mailing list ARIN-consult at arin.net https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult ------------------------------ End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 71, Issue 10 ******************************************** From mcr at sandelman.ca Mon Aug 6 13:42:16 2018 From: mcr at sandelman.ca (Michael Richardson) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 13:42:16 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> Message-ID: <24007.1533577336@localhost> John Curran wrote: > Owen - > ?If ARIN does not receive some form of response? is rather vague? > Can we both clarify and streamline the processing to effect that ARIN > makes a reasonable effort to contact the POC, and then 60 days later, > if the POC still meets orphaned criteria AND has not been updated in > the any manner, then it is safe to archive and remove? Doesn't ARIN already ask me to confirm my POC, usually by logging in, peridically? (Yearly I think) {or am I confusing this with something else} -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 487 bytes Desc: not available URL: From austin.murkland at qscend.com Mon Aug 6 14:35:49 2018 From: austin.murkland at qscend.com (Austin Murkland) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:35:49 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> Message-ID: Since the POC and Org handles won't be reused/released; should there also be a process to allow for "un-archiving" or at least keep it as a possibility for a year after archiving is implemented? I can't see many cases where this would be needed given the generous time frames for validation, but in the event it should arise it may be less resource intensive to un-archive a POC/Org. On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 9:11 AM John Curran wrote: > On 5 Aug 2018, at 3:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > ... > > 2. It would be reasonable to make an effort to contact said POC, > giving said POC 60 days notice that > > their record is orphaned and pending deletion. > > > > 3. After 60 days elapses if ARIN does not receive some form of > response indicating that there is a > > reason to maintain said orphaned POC, it should be safe to remove > it, relegating it to who?s > > for all eternity. > > Owen - > > ?If ARIN does not receive some form of response? is rather vague? > > Can we both clarify and streamline the processing to effect that ARIN > makes a reasonable effort to contact the POC, and then 60 days later, if > the POC still meets orphaned criteria AND has not been updated in the any > manner, then it is safe to archive and remove? > > This provides that a party notified can associate the record with some > resources or simply update it the record and it will remain in the database. > > Thoughts? > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the > ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjones at vt.edu Mon Aug 6 14:47:31 2018 From: bjones at vt.edu (Brian Jones) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 14:47:31 -0400 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records In-Reply-To: <20180806153022.GA48838@gweep.net> References: <60c9cca3-109d-593c-5a8d-436452ed9b0b@arin.net> <63159B82-5AE8-46F0-B9FB-DF31FDF3663A@arin.net> <2FB38976-1600-4302-AE06-3897C8B0465A@arin.net> <27058DF3-664D-4F9F-B1BC-58DB0607F957@delong.com> <20180806153022.GA48838@gweep.net> Message-ID: <1E785892-003D-4785-B59B-FDD120DEE048@vt.edu> See inline: > On Aug 6, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Joe Provo wrote: > > > [personal hat on] > > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > [snip] >> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC >> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some >> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that, >> I???m not strongly tied to the idea. > Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration) > nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised. > I think that's a big win for aliveness detection. +1 - I like the idea of being able to de-orphan until the next iteration. > > Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the > larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that > timescale. Not super wedded to that detail. > +1 - I think 90 days is a better timescale in general. That should keep things much more up to date than we are currently seeing while not being an overly long amount of time. > JC previously wrote: >> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one >> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact >> same organization name with another of the 454,090). >> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc, >> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their >> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records, >> which in turn reduces orphaned records. > > I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation > on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices. > As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical > process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable > *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course? > It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction > would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently > here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection > sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after > transactions have been completed and forgotten. > A pre-orphaning/validation notice could also be helpful in addition to the validating at the time of orphaning. This gives orgs a chance to discuss any changes that may be needed before the actual orphaning takes place. > Cheers! > > Joe > > -- > Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. > Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Consult > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -- Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO NI&S Virginia Tech bjones at vt.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From farmer at umn.edu Sun Aug 12 15:26:19 2018 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 14:26:19 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] Responses issued on five recent ACSP Suggestions In-Reply-To: <65654732-fe64-72b0-89f0-24de6358e1f1@arin.net> References: <65654732-fe64-72b0-89f0-24de6358e1f1@arin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:27 PM, ARIN wrote: > We have issued our initial responses to suggestions 2018.13, 2018.14, > 2018.15, 2018.16, and 2018.17. All remain open, and the suggestion title, > url, and the complete text of each response can be found below. > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > ... > 3. ACSP Suggestion 2018.15: Add "Routing" and "DNS" Points of Contact > > https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/suggestions/2018-15.html > > Thank you for your suggestion, numbered 2018.15 upon confirmed receipt, > requesting ARIN add two new Point of Contact types ? Routing and DNS. > > This suggestion is well timed with the start of ARIN?s new Internet > Routing Registry (IRR) development. We agree with your suggestion to > include a new ?Routing? point of contact type and have also received > suggestions from customers over recent years through customer service > interactions that we also add a ?DNS? point of contact type. These new > additions will be included in our IRR-related development work that runs > this year through the first quarters of 2019. > ... I enthusiastically support the Routing POC concept, however, I have a couple question regarding the Routing POC, noting that it is also included in the IRR roadmap. https://www.arin.net/vault/resources/routing/2018_roadmap.html The report says, "This [Routing] POC will be restricted to only add/modify/delete routing related data." I would like to clarify if this is intended to include only IRR routing data or will RPKI access also be included for Routing POCs as suggest in ACSP Suggestion 2018.15? Furthermore, I note that "Origin AS" is effectively routing data as well. So will the Routing POC also be able to add/modify/delete this field as well? I very much appreciate ARIN Staff making IRR roadmap report available, and I'm excited to have ARIN begin delivering on the plan as soon as possible. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jcurran at arin.net Tue Aug 14 05:58:13 2018 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 09:58:13 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] Responses issued on five recent ACSP Suggestions In-Reply-To: References: <65654732-fe64-72b0-89f0-24de6358e1f1@arin.net> Message-ID: <0713D47A-9D93-47A6-9C0D-6056DBA88D75@arin.net> On 12 Aug 2018, at 3:26 PM, David Farmer > wrote: I enthusiastically support the Routing POC concept, however, I have a couple question regarding the Routing POC, noting that it is also included in the IRR roadmap. https://www.arin.net/vault/resources/routing/2018_roadmap.html The report says, "This [Routing] POC will be restricted to only add/modify/delete routing related data." I would like to clarify if this is intended to include only IRR routing data or will RPKI access also be included for Routing POCs as suggest in ACSP Suggestion 2018.15? Furthermore, I note that "Origin AS" is effectively routing data as well. So will the Routing POC also be able to add/modify/delete this field as well? I very much appreciate ARIN Staff making IRR roadmap report available, and I'm excited to have ARIN begin delivering on the plan as soon as possible. David - With regards to your two questions above, what is your preference ? would you prefer that the Routing POC to be able to modify RPKI and Origin AS data as well (or not) and why is that your preference? Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farmer at umn.edu Tue Aug 14 09:30:02 2018 From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 08:30:02 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] [ARIN-Suggestions] Responses issued on five recent ACSP Suggestions In-Reply-To: <0713D47A-9D93-47A6-9C0D-6056DBA88D75@arin.net> References: <65654732-fe64-72b0-89f0-24de6358e1f1@arin.net> <0713D47A-9D93-47A6-9C0D-6056DBA88D75@arin.net> Message-ID: I would include preferred On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:58 AM, John Curran wrote: > On 12 Aug 2018, at 3:26 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > I enthusiastically support the Routing POC concept, however, I have a > couple question regarding the Routing POC, noting that it is also included > in the IRR roadmap. > > https://www.arin.net/vault/resources/routing/2018_roadmap.html > > The report says, "This [Routing] POC will be restricted to only > add/modify/delete routing related data." > > I would like to clarify if this is intended to include only IRR routing > data or will RPKI access also be included for Routing POCs as suggest in > ACSP Suggestion 2018.15? > > Furthermore, I note that "Origin AS" is effectively routing data as well. > So will the Routing POC also be able to add/modify/delete this field as > well? > > I very much appreciate ARIN Staff making IRR roadmap report available, and > I'm excited to have ARIN begin delivering on the plan as soon as possible. > > > David - > > With regards to your two questions above, what is your preference ? would > you prefer that the Routing POC to be able to modify RPKI and Origin AS > data as well (or not) and why is that your preference? > > Thanks! > /John > I'll start with the easy one Origin AS, I don't have a strong preference but would probably include it. I probably would not make it a high priority, especially if it proves difficult to accomplish. But, if it is easy, it might be a quick win to show progress. I think including RPKI under the Routing POC is important and should be a priority. One issue though, the primary purpose of the Routing POC is to be able to delegate the maintenance tasks for routing information, possibly to a third party, like your ISP if you are an end user. Also delegating the maintenance tasks for RPKI seems quite useful. However, there is one issue with RPKI that probably can't or at least shouldn't be delegated. Accepting the risk for its use by the organization is probably not appropriate for the Routing POC, especially if they are a third party, and should probably be done by the Admin POC or the Technical POC. Leaving day-to-day technical maintenance tasks for RPKI to the Routing POC. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: